The Telecoms Package was the review of the European Union
Telecommunications Framework from 2007 – 2009. The objective of the
review was to update the EU Telecoms Framework of 2002 and to create a
common set of regulations for the telecoms industry across all 27 EU
member states. The review consisted of a package of directives
addressing the regulation of service provision, access, interconnection,
users' contractual rights and users' privacy, as well as a regulation
creating a new European regulatory body (BEREC).
The update to the telecoms regulations was needed to address the
growth of broadband Internet. It was intended merely to address
structural regulation and competitive issues concerning the broadband
providers and the provision of spectrum. The Telecoms Package created a
new pan-European agency called Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications
(BEREC) overseeing telecoms regulation in the member states. It
provided for member states to set minimum quality of service levels for
broadband network transmission. It harmonised European contractual
rights for telephone and Internet subscribers. These rights included the
ability to switch telephone operators within 24 hours of giving notice,
and retaining the phone number. Broadband and phone providers are
obligated to limit the contract term to 12 months. Subscribers are to be
notified of data privacy breaches.
The Telecoms Package became subject to several political
controversies, including disputes over the provision of access to
infrastructure by dominant broadband providers. However, the most
significant controversies concerned copyright and net neutrality.
The controversy over copyright arose because of an attempt to put in amendments mandating Internet service providers
to enforce copyright. It was argued that these amendments sought to
implement a three-strikes regime. There was a public political argument
over this matter. The debate eventually centred on one single
counter-amendment, known as Amendment 138. The outcome was that the
package was forced to go to three readings in the European Parliament,
and a compromise amendment was drafted, with the agreement of the three
European institutions – Parliament, Commission and Council. This
compromise amendment is sometimes now known as the 'freedom provision'.
The net neutrality
controversy arose out of changes made to transparency requirements for
broadband providers, where, it was argued, those changes could permit
the providers to alter quality-of-service or favour or discriminate
against other players.
The Telecoms Package is known in German as Telekom-Paket, in French as Paquet Telecom, in Spanish as Paquete Telecom, and in Swedish as Telekompaketet.
Regulation No 1211/2009 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
The Telecoms Package was presented by Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for Information Society, to the European Parliament in Strasbourg 13 November 2007.
The draft legislation that was presented to the European Parliament was:
The Telecoms Package went through three readings in the European
Parliament. The First Reading concluded on 24 September 2008. The second
reading concluded on 5 May 2009. The third reading, also known as the
conciliation process, concluded at midnight on 5 November 2009.
The entire package was finally adopted by a majority vote in the
European Parliament on 24 November 2009. This was, however, a legal
technicality. The critical policy issues had already been decided during
the three readings.
The Telecoms Package entered into European law on 18 December
2009 (the date on which it was published in the Official Journal), after
which member states had 18 months to implement its provisions in
national law.
Copyright
The
Telecoms Package was a complex piece of legislation. It was intended to
update many aspects of telecoms regulation. It combined earlier
directives from 2002 into two new bundles. The Framework, Access and
Authorisation directives from 2002, were put into one new directive. The
Universal Services and e-Privacy directives, also from 2002, were
bundled together into another new directive.
In the European Commission's draft of 13 November 2007, there
were two amendments that attempted to insert support for copyright,
notably that EU member states should mandate their broadband providers
to co-operate with rights-holders and favouring a 'three strikes' or
graduated response regime. These two amendments were Annex 1, point 19
of the Authorisation directive and Amendment 20.6 of the Universal
Services directive. They sparked a major political controversy over the enforcement of copyright on the Internet.
The copyright controversy became public during the first reading
of European Parliament. It came to dominate the political debate and was
the subject of a vocal activist campaign led by La Quadrature du Net.
It was only resolved during the third reading, when the European
Parliament drafted a new provision that reminded member state
governments of their obligations under the European Convention of Human
Rights, notably the right to due process.
Amendment 138
The
famous (or infamous) Amendment 138 was tabled to highlight the problem
of copyright and with the aim of stopping a three strikes regime being
legitimated in European Union legislation.
Amendment 138 was an amendment tabled to the Framework directive,
that sought to mandate a judicial ruling in cases where Internet access
would be cut off. It was deliberately framed to target other proposals
for copyright measures – the so-called 'three-strikes'. The text of
amendment 138 was:
“ applying the principle that no
restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of
end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably
in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent".
Amendment 138 was adopted by the European Parliament in the first
reading plenary vote on 24 September 2008. This created an
inter-institutional stand-off between the Parliament on the one hand,
and the Commission and the Council of Ministers, on the other.
In the second reading, on 5 May 2009, the European Parliament again voted for Amendment 138.
In the Third Reading, the only issue under discussion was
Amendment 138 and how to handle the copyright issue. A compromise
provision was finally agreed by all three EU institutions at midnight on
4 November 2009. This provision is Article 1.3a of the Framework
directive. It is sometimes known as the 'Freedom Provision'.
The text of Article 1.3a (the so-called "Freedom Provision") is:
"3a. Measures taken by Member
States regarding end-users access' to, or use of, services and
applications through electronic communications networks shall respect
the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, as guaranteed by
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms and general principles of Community law.
Any of these measures regarding end-users' access to, or use of,
services and applications through electronic communications networks
liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be
imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a
democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to
adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
and with general principles of Community law, including effective
judicial protection and due process. Accordingly, these measures may
only be taken with due respect for the principle of the presumption of
innocence and the right to privacy. A prior, fair and impartial
procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the
person or persons concerned, subject to the need for appropriate
conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of
urgency in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to effective and
timely judicial review shall be guaranteed."
Net neutrality
The Telecoms Package contained provisions that concerned net neutrality.
These provisions related to transparency of information supplied by
network operators and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to their
subscribers. They can be found in Article 20 and 21 of the Universal
Services directive.
These two articles were subject to considerable lobbying by the
telecoms network operators, who wanted to retain the flexibility to run
the networks to suit their business requirements.
Some of their demands were criticised by citizens advocacy groups,
who argued that certain proposed amendments would allow the broadband
operators to use discriminatory forms of traffic management. The outcome
was a strange wording in the text:
"inform subscribers of any change to conditions limiting
access to and/or use of services and applications, where such conditions
are permitted under national law in accordance with Community law";
The Telecoms Package was a target for lobbying by American telecoms
companies, notably AT&T and Verizon, seeking to get the ability to
use sophisticated traffic management techniques on broadband networks
embedded into European law. Filip Svab, chairman of the "Telecoms Working Group" of the Council of the European Union,
which was responsible for drafting the council's changes to the
Telecoms Package on the second reading, left Brussels for a new job with
AT&T (External Affairs Director).
Media democracy is both a theory and a social movement.
It is against concentration in the ownership of media, and it champions
diversity of voices and perspectives within the news system.
Definition
Media democracy focuses on the empowerment of individual citizens and on the promotion of democratic ideals through the spread of information. Additionally, the approach argues that the media system itself should be democratic in its own construction,
shying away from private ownership or intense regulations. Media
democracy entails that media should be used to promote democracy and that media itself should be democratic.
For example, it views media ownership concentration as undemocratic and
as being unable to promote democracy, and thus, as facet of media that
must be examined critically.
Both the concept and the social movements promoting it have grown in
response to the increased corporate domination in mass media and
perceived shrinking of the marketplace of ideas. It understands media as a tool with the power to reach a large audience with a central role in shaping culture.
The concept of a media democracy follows in response to the
deregulation of broadcast markets and the concentration of mass media
ownership. In the book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, authors Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky outline the propaganda model
of media, which states that the private interests in control of media
outlets shape news and information before it is disseminated to the
public through the use of five information filters.
Media democracy gives people the right to participate in media. It extends the media's relationship to the public sphere, where the information gathered can be viewed and shared by the people.
The relationship of media democracy and the public sphere extends to
various types of media, such as social media and mainstream media, in
order for people to communicate with one another through digital media
and share the information they want to publish to the public.
The term also refers to a modern social movement
evident in countries all over the world. It attempts to make mainstream
media more accountable to the publics they serve and to create more
democratic alternatives to current forms of mass media.
Media democracy advocates for:
Replacing the current corporate media model with one that operates democratically, rather than for profit;
Strengthening public service broadcasting;
Incorporating the use of alternative media into the larger discourse;
Increasing the role of citizen journalism;
Turning a passive audience into active participants;
Using the mass media to promote democratic ideals.
The competitive structure of the mass media landscape stands in
opposition to democratic ideals since the competition of the marketplace
affects how stories are framed and transmitted to the public. This can
"hamper the ability of the democratic system to solve internal social
problems as well as international conflicts in an optimal way."
Media democracy is grounded in creating a mass media system that
favours a diversity of voices and opinions over ownership or
consolidation, in an effort to eliminate bias in coverage. This, in
turn, leads to the informed public debate necessary for a democratic
state.
The ability to comprehend and scrutinize the connection between press
and democracy is important because media has the power to tell a
society's stories and thereby influence thinking, beliefs and behaviour.
Media ownership concentration
Cultural studies
have investigated changes in the increasing tendency of modern mass
media in the field of politics to blur and confuse the boundaries
between journalism, entertainment, public relations and advertising.
A diverse range of information providers is necessary so that viewers,
readers and listeners receive a broad spectrum of information from
varying sources that is not tightly controlled, biased and filtered.
Access to different sources of information prevents deliberate attempts
at misinformation and allows the public to make their own judgments and
form their own opinions. This is critical as individuals must be in a position to decide and act autonomously for there to be a functioning democracy.
The last several decades have seen an increased concentration of media ownership by large private entities. In the United States, these organizations are known as the Big Six. They include: General Electric, Walt Disney Co., News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS Corporation. A similar approach has been taken in Canada, where most media outlets are owned by national conglomerates.
This has led to a reduction in the number of voices and opinions
communicated to the public; to an increase in the commercialization of
news and information; a reduction in investigative reporting; and an
emphasis on infotainment and profitability over informative public
discourse.
The concentration of media outlets has been encouraged by
government deregulation and neoliberal trade policies. In the United
States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996
removed most of the media ownership rules that were previously put in
place. This led to a massive consolidation of the telecommunications
industry. Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority
ownership in TV stations dropped to its lowest point since 1990 when the
federal government began tracking the data.
Another aspect of the concentration of media ownership is the
nature of the political economy that follows. Some media theorists argue
that corporate interest is put forth, and that only the small cluster
of media outlets have the privilege of controlling the information that
the population can access.
Moreover, media democracy claims that corporate ownership and
commercial pressures influence media content, sharply limiting the range
of news, opinions, and entertainment citizens receive. Consequently,
they call for a more equal distribution of economic, social, cultural,
and information capital, which would lead to a more informed citizenry,
as well as a more enlightened, representative political discourse.
To counter media ownership concentration, advocates of media
democracy support media diversification. For instance, they prefer local
news sources, for they allow for a greater variety in the ideas being
spread thanks to being outside the corporate economy, since diversity is at the root of a fair democracy.
The World Wide Web, particularly Web 2.0,
is seen as a powerful medium for facilitating the growth of a media
democracy as it offers participants "a potential voice, a platform, and
access to the means of production."
The internet is being utilized as a medium for political activity and
other pressing issues such as social, environmental, and economic
problems.
Moreover, the utilization of the internet has allowed online users to
participate in political discourse freely and increase their democratic
presence online and in person.Users share information such as voting
polls, dates, locations, and statistics, or information about protests
and news that is not yet covered by the media.
The Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa, media was used for democratic purposes and uprisings. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube
allowed citizens to connect quickly, exchange information, and organize
protests against their governments. While social media is not solely
credited with the success of these protests, the technologies played an
important role in instilling change in Tunisia, Egypt,
and Libya. These acts show that a population can be informed through
alternative media channels and adjust its behaviour accordingly.
Individuals who did not have the facility to access these social media
platforms were still able to observe news through satellite channels and
other people who were able to connect online. Crowdfunded websites are also linked to a heightened spread of media democracy.
The Romanian Election of 2014
serves as an example of internet media democracy. During the elections,
many took to social media to voice their opinions and share pictures of
themselves at polling centres all around the world. This 2014 election
is remembered as the first time in which virtual ambition and the use of
social media translated positively and directly onto polling numbers.
Many Romanians were actively campaigning online through social media
platforms, specifically, Facebook,
"As more than 7 million Romanians have profiles on at least one social
network and more than 70% of that one were active daily, the campaign
was focused on the development of the civic participation through
internet social networks."
Restriction in media
Restrictions
in media may exist either directly or indirectly. Before internet usage
of media, as well as social media, became prominent, ordinary citizens
rarely had much control over media. Even as the usage of social media
has increased, major corporations still maintain the primary control
over media as they are acquiring more and more platforms that would be
considered in public use today.
Media has been compared in the sense that it is the usage of
media that determines how the content is considered, rather than the
actual messages of the content. According to Alec Charles edited Media/Democracy,
“It is not the press or television or the internet or even democracy
itself that is good or bad. It is what we do with them that makes them
so”.
The role government plays in media restrictions in media has been
viewed with skepticism as well. The government involvement in media is
possibly due to distrust between the government and media, as the
government has criticized media before. Partial blame for distrust
between the government and the public on both sides often goes to media
as the public may feel as though there is false information though media
and the government may feel as though media is giving the public false
information.
These functions of media in the way that it exists is described in a review of Victor Pickard's book, America's Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform,
where Josh Shepperd wrote, “If one approaches the historical question
of media ownership from a public service model, the private emphasis of
the system requires praise for its innovations and self-sustainability,
but deserves deep interrogation for its largely uncontested claim that
the system, as is, provides the best opportunity for social
recognition”.
In his 2005 speech at the NASIG,
Leif Utne states that media democracy is related to freedom of press
because it contributes to the reciprocal exchange of desires and
information between the press, the state, and the population.
Normative roles of media in democracy
Monitorial role
The term is originally coined by Harold Lasswell
who associated the monitorial role with surveillance, "observing an
extended environment for relevant information about events, conditions,
trends, and threats."
This form of media democracy is organized through the scanning of the
real world of people, status and events, and potentially relevant
sources of information. Under the guidance of relevance, importance, and
normative framework that regulates the public domain, such information
is evaluated and verified. Staying alert and controlling political
power. It provides information to individuals to make their own
decisions. The monitorial role involves practices such as publishing
reports, agendas, and threats, reporting political, social, and economic
decisions, and shedding light to public opinion.
Facilitative role
Media democracy uses journalism as a means to improve the quality
of public life and promote democratic forms. It serves as a glue to
hold community together. And it also enhances the ability and desire to
listen to others.
Radical role
Going to the "root" of power relations and inequality and
exposing their negative impacts upon the quality of everyday life and
the health of democracy.
Oppositional to commercial/mainstream media which tend to protect
the interest of the powerful and fail to provide information that
raises critical awareness and generated empowerment. Cultivating
political advocacy motivates engaging in political social democracy.
Collaborative role
Collaboration between media and state is always open and transparent.
There is widespread concern that the mass media and social media are not serving the role that a well-functioning democracy.
For example, the media is in charge of broadcasting political news to
truthfully inform the population, but those messages can have a double
purpose (promoting the good of the population and advancing the
politicians' career through public relations), which can make the journalists' work more difficult.
There is a need for the public to be informed about certain issues
whether it may be social, political, or environmental. The media is
heavily credited for keeping the public informed and up-to-date with
activity, however, throughout the 80's and 90's corporate media has
taken over in providing this information.
Feminism
Feminist media theories
argue that the media cannot be considered truly inclusive or democratic
if it continues relying on masculine concepts of impartiality and
objectivity.
They argue that creating a more inclusive and democratic media requires
reconceptualizing how we define the news and its principles.
According to some feminist media theorists, news is like fictional
genres that impose order and interpretation on its materials by means of
narrative. Consequently, the news narrative put forward presents only one angle of a much wider picture.
It is argued that the distinction between public and private
information that underpins how we define valuable or appropriate news
content is also a gendered concept.
The feminist argument follows that the systematic subversion of private
or subjective information excludes women's voices from the popular
discourse.
Further to this point, feminist media theorists argue there is an
assumed sense of equality implicit in the definition of the public that
ignores important differences between genders in terms of their
perspectives. So while media democracy in practice as alternative or
citizen journalism may allow for greater diversity, these theorists
argue that women's voices are framed within a masculine structure of
objectivity and rationalist thinking.
Despite this criticism, there is an acceptance among some
theorists that the blurring of public and private information with the
introduction of some new alternative forms of media production (as well
as the increase in opportunities for interaction and user-generated content) may signal a positive shift towards a more democratic and inclusive media democracy.
Some forms of media democracy in practice (as citizen or alternative
journalism) are challenging journalism's central tenets (objectivity and
impartiality) by rejecting the idea that it is possible to tell a
narrative without bias and, more to the point, that it is socially or
morally preferable.
Activism
Media Democracy Day, OpenMedia, and NewsWatch Canada are all Canadian initiatives that strive for reforms in the media. They aim to give an equal voice to all interests. Others, such as the creators of the Indonesian television program Newsdotcom, focus on increasing the population's media literacy rate to make the people more critical of the news they consume.
Criticism
The
media has given political parties the tools to reach large numbers of
people and inform them on key issues ranging from policies to elections.
The media can be seen as an enabler for democracy; having
better-educated voters would lead to a more legitimate government.
However, critics such as Julian King have argued that malicious actors
can easily hijack those same tools - both state and non-state - and use
them as weapons against people. In the past few years, media has become
a direct threat to democracy. Two organizations of the Omidyar Group, Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network
assembled to establish the relationship between media and democracy.
Their initial findings presented six ways that social media was a direct
threat to democracy.
Many social media platforms, such as Facebook, utilize surveillance infrastructure to collect user data and micro-target populations with personalized advertisements.
With users leaving digital footprints almost everywhere they go, social
media platforms create portfolios of the user to target them with
specific advertisements.
This leads to the formation of "echo chambers, polarization and
hyper-partisanship." Therefore, social media platforms create bubbles,
which are forever growing, of one-sided information and opinions. These
bubbles trap the users and diminish opportunities for a healthy
discourse. A commonly known effect social media has on democracy is the "spread of false and/or misleading information". Disinformation and Misinformation
is commonly, at scale, spread across social media by both state and
private actors, mainly using bots. Each type poses a threat as it floods
social media with multiple, competing realities shifting the truth,
facts and evidence to the side.
Social media follows an algorithm that converts popularity into
legitimacy, this is the idea that likes or retweets create validity or
mass support. In theory, it creates a distorted system of evaluating
information and provides a false representation. It's further harder to
distinguish who is a troll or a bot.
Social media further allows for manipulation by "populist leaders,
governments and fringe actors". "Populist" leaders use platforms such as
Twitter, Instagram to communicate with their electorate. However, such
platforms allow them to roam freely with no restrictions allowing them
to silence the minority voice, showcase momentum for their views or
creating the impression of approval.
Finally, social media causes the disruption of the public square. Some
social media platforms have user policies and technical features that
enable unintended consequences, such as hate speech, terrorist appeals,
sexual and racial harassment, thus discouraging any civil debates. This
leads the targeted groups to opting out of participating in public
discourse.
as much as social media has made it easier for the public to receive and
access news and entertainment from their devices it has been dangerous
in terms of rapid spread of fake news (2019). the public is now easily
accessible to those with the intend to spread disinformation information
in order to harm and misled the public. those in authority, officials
and the elite use their power to dominate the narratives on social media
often times to gain their support and misled them.
The 774–775 carbon-14 spike is an observed increase of around 1.2% in the concentration of the radioactive carbon-14 isotope in tree rings dated to 774 or 775 CE,
which is about 20 times higher than the normal year-to-year variation
of radiocarbon in the atmosphere. It was discovered during a study of Japanese cedar tree-rings, with the year of occurrence determined through dendrochronology. A surge in beryllium isotope 10 Be, detected in Antarctic ice cores, has also been associated with the 774–775 event. The 774–775 CE carbon-14 spike is one of several Miyake events and it produced the largest and most rapid rise in carbon-14 ever recorded.
The carbon-14
spike around 774. Colored dots are measurements in Japanese (M12) and
German (oak) trees; black lines are the modeled profile corresponding to
the instant production of carbon-14.
The signal exhibits a sharp increase of around 1.2% followed by a
slow decline, which is consistent with an instant production of
carbon-14 in the atmosphere, indicating that the event was short in duration. The globally averaged production of carbon-14 for this event is (1.3 ± 0.2) × 108 atoms/cm2.
Hypotheses
Several possible causes of the event have been considered.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recorded "a red crucifix, after sunset", which has been variously hypothesised to have been a supernova or the aurora borealis.
Annus Domini (the year of the Lord) 774. This year the Northumbrians banished their king, Alred, from York at Easter-tide; and chose Ethelred, the son of Mull, for their lord, who reigned four winters. This year also appeared in the heavens a red crucifix, after sunset; the Mercians and the men of Kent fought at Otford; and wonderful serpents were seen in the land of the South-Saxons.
In China, there is only one clear reference to an aurora in the mid-770s, on 12 January 776.However, an anomalous "thunderstorm" was recorded for 775.
As established by Ilya G. Usoskin and colleagues, the current scientific paradigm is that the event was caused by a solar particle event (SPE) from a very strong solar flare, perhaps the strongest known.
Another proposed origin, involving a gamma-ray burst, is regarded as unlikely, because the event was also observed in isotopes 10 Be and 36 Cl.
Frequency of similar events
The AD 774/75 event in view of 10 Be, 14 C, and 36 Cl
The event of 774 is the strongest spike over the last 11,000 years in the record of cosmogenic isotopes, but several other events of the same kind (Miyake events) have occurred during the Holocene epoch. The 993–994 carbon-14 spike was about 60% as strong; another event occurred in c. 660 BCE.In 2023 the strongest event yet discovered was reported, which occurred in 12,350-12,349 BC.
The event of 774 did not have any significant consequences for life on Earth,
but had it happened in modern times, it might have produced
catastrophic damage to modern technology, particularly to communication
and space-borne navigation systems. In addition, a solar flare capable
of producing the observed isotopic effect would pose considerable risk
to astronauts.
14 C
variations are poorly understood, because annual-resolution
measurements are available for only a few periods (such as 774–775). In a 2017 study, a 14 C
increase of (2.0%) was associated with a 5480 BCE event, but it is not
associated with a solar event because of its long duration, but rather
to an unusually fast grand minimum of solar activity.
A solvated electron is a freeelectron in a solution, in which it behaves like an anion. An electron's being solvated in a solution means it is bound by the solution. The notation for a solvated electron in formulas of chemical reactions is "e−".
Often, discussions of solvated electrons focus on their solutions in
ammonia, which are stable for days, but solvated electrons also occur in
water and many other solvents – in fact, in any solvent that mediates outer-sphere electron transfer. The solvated electron is responsible for a great deal of radiation chemistry.
Ammonia solutions
Liquid ammonia will dissolve all of the alkali metals and other electropositive metals such as Ca, Sr, Ba, Eu, and Yb (also Mg using an electrolytic process), giving characteristic blue solutions. For alkali metals in liquid ammonia, the solution is blue when dilute and copper-colored when more concentrated (> 3 molar). These solutions conduct electricity.
The blue colour of the solution is due to ammoniated electrons, which
absorb energy in the visible region of light. The diffusivity of the
solvated electron in liquid ammonia can be determined using
potential-step chronoamperometry.
Solvated electrons in ammonia are the anions of salts called electrides.
Na + 6 NH3 → [Na(NH3)6]+ + e−
The reaction is reversible: evaporation of the ammonia solution produces a film of metallic sodium.
Case study: Li in NH3
Solutions obtained by dissolution of lithium
in liquid ammonia. The solution at the top has a dark blue color and
the lower one a golden color. The colors are characteristic of solvated
electrons at electronically insulating and metallic concentrations,
respectively.
A lithium–ammonia solution at −60 °C is saturated at about 15 mol%
metal (MPM). When the concentration is increased in this range electrical conductivity increases from 10−2 to 104Ω−1cm−1 (larger than liquid mercury).
At around 8 MPM, a "transition to the metallic state" (TMS) takes place
(also called a "metal-to-nonmetal transition" (MNMT)). At 4 MPM a
liquid-liquid phase separation takes place: the less dense gold-colored
phase becomes immiscible from a denser blue phase. Above 8 MPM the
solution is bronze/gold-colored. In the same concentration range the
overall density decreases by 30%.
Solvated
electrons are involved in the reaction of alkali metals with water,
even though the solvated electron has only a fleeting existence. Below pH = 9.6 the hydrated electron reacts with the hydronium
ion giving atomic hydrogen, which in turn can react with the hydrated
electron giving hydroxide ion and usual molecular hydrogen H2.
Solvated electrons can be found even in the gas phase. This
implies their possible existence in the upper atmosphere of Earth and
involvement in nucleation and aerosol formation.
Its standard electrode potential value is -2.77 V. The equivalent conductivity of 177 Mho cm2 is similar to that of hydroxide ion. This value of equivalent conductivity corresponds to a diffusivity of 4.75 cm2s−1.
Reactivity
Although
quite stable, the blue ammonia solutions containing solvated electrons
degrade rapidly in the presence of catalysts to give colorless solutions
of sodium amide:
2 [Na(NH3)6]+e− → H2 + 2 NaNH2 + 10 NH3
Electride salts can be isolated by the addition of macrocyclicligands such as crown ether and cryptands
to solutions containing solvated electrons. These ligands strongly
bind the cations and prevent their re-reduction by the electron.
A specialized use of sodium-ammonia solutions is the Birch reduction.
Other reactions where sodium is used as a reducing agent also are
assumed to involve solvated electrons, e.g. the use of sodium in ethanol
as in the Bouveault–Blanc reduction.
Work by Cullen et al. showed that metal-ammonia solutions
can be used to intercalate a range of layered materials, which can then
be exfoliated in polar, aprotic solvents, to produce ionic solutions of
two-dimensional materials.
An example of this is the intercalation of graphite with potassium and
ammonia, which is then exfoliated by spontaneous dissolution in THF to
produce a graphenide solution.
History
The observation of the color of metal-electride solutions is generally attributed to Humphry Davy.
In 1807–1809, he examined the addition of grains of potassium to
gaseous ammonia (liquefaction of ammonia was invented in 1823). James Ballantyne Hannay and J. Hogarth repeated the experiments with sodium in 1879–1880. W. Weyl in 1864 and C. A. Seely in 1871 used liquid ammonia, whereas Hamilton Cady in 1897 related the ionizing properties of ammonia to that of water. Charles A. Kraus measured the electrical conductance of metal ammonia solutions and in 1907 attributed it to the electrons liberated from the metal. In 1918, G. E. Gibson and W. L. Argo introduced the solvated electron concept. They noted based on absorption spectra that different metals and different solvents (methylamine, ethylamine) produce the same blue color, attributed to a common species, the solvated electron. In the 1970s, solid salts containing electrons as the anion were characterized.
Sunspots of 1 September 1859, as sketched by Richard Carrington.
A and B mark the initial positions of an intensely bright event, which
moved over the course of five minutes to C and D before disappearing.
The Carrington Event was the most intense geomagnetic storm in recorded history, peaking on 1–2 September 1859 during solar cycle 10. It created strong auroral displays that were reported globally and caused sparking and even fires in telegraph stations. The geomagnetic storm was most likely the result of a coronal mass ejection (CME) from the Sun colliding with Earth's magnetosphere.
The geomagnetic storm was associated with a very bright solar flare on 1 September 1859. It was observed and recorded independently by British astronomers Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson—the
first records of a solar flare. A geomagnetic storm of this magnitude
occurring today has the potential to cause widespread electrical
disruptions, blackouts and damage due to extended cuts of the electrical power grid.
History
Geomagnetic storm
Image of the July 2012 solar storm,
which generated CMEs of comparable strength to the one of 1859. Note
the small bright circle in the light baffle which demonstrates the size
of the Sun.
On 1 and 2 September 1859, one of the largest geomagnetic storms (as recorded by ground-based magnetometers) occurred. Estimates of the storm strength (Dst) range from −0.80 to −1.75 μT.
The geomagnetic storm is thought to have been caused by a big coronal mass ejection (CME) that traveled directly toward Earth, taking 17.6 hours to make the 150×106 km (93×106 mi)
journey. Typical CMEs take several days to arrive at Earth, but it is
believed that the relatively high speed of this CME was made possible by
a prior CME, perhaps the cause of the large aurora event on 29 August
that "cleared the way" of ambient solar windplasma for the Carrington Event.
Associated solar flare
Just
before noon on 1 September 1859, the English amateur astronomers
Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson independently recorded the
earliest observations of a solar flare. Carrington and Hodgson compiled independent reports which were published side by side in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and exhibited their drawings of the event at the November 1859 meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Because of a geomagnetic solar flare effect (a "magnetic crochet") observed in the Kew Observatory magnetometer record by Scottish physicist Balfour Stewart, and a geomagnetic storm observed the following day, Carrington suspected a solar–terrestrial connection. Worldwide reports of the effects of the geomagnetic storm of 1859 were compiled and published by American mathematician Elias Loomis, which support the observations of Carrington and Stewart.
Impact
Auroras
Aurora
during a geomagnetic storm that was most likely caused by a coronal
mass ejection from the Sun on 24 May 2010, taken from the International Space Station
Auroras were seen around the world in the northern and southern hemispheres. The aurora borealis over the Rocky Mountains
in the United States was so bright that the glow woke gold miners, who
were reported to have begun to prepare breakfast because they thought it
was morning. It was also reported that people in the north-eastern
United States could read a newspaper by the aurora's light. The aurora was also visible from the poles to low latitude areas such as south-central Mexico, Cuba, Hawaii, Queensland, southern Japan and China, and even at lower latitudes very close to the equator, such as in Colombia.
Those who happened to be out late
on Thursday night had an opportunity of witnessing another magnificent
display of the auroral lights. The phenomenon was very similar to the
display on Sunday night, though at times the light was, if possible,
more brilliant, and the prismatic hues more varied and gorgeous. The
light appeared to cover the whole firmament, apparently like a luminous
cloud, through which the stars of the larger magnitude indistinctly
shone. The light was greater than that of the moon at its full, but had
an indescribable softness and delicacy that seemed to envelop everything
upon which it rested. Between 12 and 1 o'clock, when the display was at
its full brilliancy, the quiet streets of the city resting under this
strange light, presented a beautiful as well as singular appearance.
In 1909, an Australian gold miner named C. F. Herbert retold his observations in a letter to the Daily News in Perth,
I was gold-digging at Rokewood, about four miles [6 km] from Rokewood township (Victoria).
Myself and two mates looking out of the tent saw a great reflection in
the southern heavens at about 7 o'clock p.m., and in about half an hour,
a scene of almost unspeakable beauty presented itself: Lights of every
imaginable color were issuing from the southern heavens, one color
fading away only to give place to another if possible more beautiful
than the last, the streams mounting to the zenith, but always becoming a
rich purple when reaching there, and always curling round, leaving a
clear strip of sky, which may be described as four fingers held at arm's
length. The northern side from the zenith was also illuminated with
beautiful colors, always curling round at the zenith, but were
considered to be merely a reproduction of the southern display, as all
colors south and north always corresponded. It was a sight never to be
forgotten, and was considered at the time to be the greatest aurora
recorded [...]. The rationalist and pantheist saw nature in her most
exquisite robes, recognising, the divine immanence, immutable law,
cause, and effect. The superstitious and the fanatical had dire
forebodings, and thought it a foreshadowing of Armageddon and final
dissolution.
Telegraphs
Because of the geomagnetically induced current from the electromagnetic field, telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases giving their operators electric shocks. Telegraph pylons threw sparks. Some operators were able to continue to send and receive messages despite having disconnected their power supplies. The following conversation occurred between two operators of the American telegraph line between Boston, Massachusetts, and Portland, Maine, on the night of 2 September 1859 and reported in the Boston Evening Traveler:
Boston operator (to Portland operator): "Please cut off your battery [power source] entirely for fifteen minutes."
Portland operator: "Will do so. It is now disconnected."
Boston: "Mine is disconnected, and we are working with the auroral current. How do you receive my writing?"
Portland: "Better than with our batteries on. – Current comes and goes gradually."
Boston: "My current is very strong at times, and we can
work better without the batteries, as the aurora seems to neutralize and
augment our batteries alternately, making current too strong at times
for our relay magnets. Suppose we work without batteries while we are
affected by this trouble."
Portland: "Very well. Shall I go ahead with business?"
Boston: "Yes. Go ahead."
The conversation was carried on for around two hours using no battery
power at all and working solely with the current induced by the aurora,
the first time on record that more than a word or two was transmitted
in such manner.
Another strong solar storm occurred in February 1872. Less severe storms also occurred in 1921 (this was comparable by some measures), 1938, 1941, 1958, 1959 and 1960, when widespread radio disruption was reported. The flares and CMEs of the August 1972 solar storms
were similar to the Carrington event in size and magnitude; however,
unlike the 1859 storms, they did not cause an extreme geomagnetic storm.
The March 1989 geomagnetic storm knocked out power across large sections of Quebec, while the 2003 Halloween solar storms registered the most powerful solar explosions ever recorded. On 23 July 2012, a "Carrington-class" solar superstorm (solar flare, CME, solar electromagnetic pulse) was observed, but its trajectory narrowly missed Earth. During the May 2024 solar storms, the Aurora Borealis was sighted as far south as Puerto Rico.
In June 2013, a joint venture from researchers at Lloyd's of London
and Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) in the US used data
from the Carrington Event to estimate the cost of a similar event in the
present to the US alone at US$600 billion to $2.6 trillion (equivalent to $774 billion to $3.35 trillion in 2023), which, at the time, equated to roughly 3.6 to 15.5 percent of annual GDP.
Other research has looked for signatures of large solar flares and CMEs in carbon-14 in tree rings and beryllium-10 (among other isotopes) in ice cores. The signature of a large solar storm has been found for the years 774–775 and 993–994.
Carbon-14 levels stored in 775 suggest an event about 20 times the
normal variation of the Sun's activity, and 10 or more times the size of
the Carrington Event. An event in 7176 BCE may have exceeded even the 774–775 event based on this proxy data.
Whether the physics of solar flares is similar to that of even larger superflares
is still unclear. The Sun may differ in important ways such as size and
speed of rotation from the types of stars that are known to produce
superflares.
Other evidence
Ice cores containing thin nitrate-rich
layers have been analysed to reconstruct a history of past solar storms
predating reliable observations. This was based on the hypothesis that solar energetic particles would ionize nitrogen, leading to the production of nitric oxide and other oxidised nitrogen compounds, which would not be too diluted in the atmosphere before being deposited along with snow.
Beginning in 1986, some researchers claimed that data from Greenland ice cores showed evidence of individual solar particle events, including the Carrington Event.
More recent ice core work, however, casts significant doubt on this
interpretation and shows that nitrate spikes are likely not a result of
solar energetic particle events but can be due to terrestrial events
such as forest fires, and correlate with other chemical signatures of
known forest fire plumes. Nitrate events in cores from Greenland and Antarctica do not align, so the hypothesis that they reflect proton events is now in significant doubt.
A 2024 study analysed digitized magnetogram readings from magnetic observatories at Kew and Greenwich.
"Initial analysis suggests the rates of change of the field of over 700
nT/min exceeded the 1-in-100 years extreme value of 350–400 nT/min at
this latitude based on digital-era records", indicating a far greater change rate than modern digital measurements.
Media cross-ownership is the common ownership of multiple media sources by a single person or corporate entity. Media sources include radio, broadcast television, specialty and pay television,
cable, satellite, Internet Protocol television (IPTV), newspapers,
magazines and periodicals, music, film, book publishing, video games,
search engines, social media, internet service providers, and wired and
wireless telecommunications.
Much of the debate over concentration of media ownership
in the United States has for many years focused specifically on the
ownership of broadcast stations, cable stations, newspapers, and
websites. Some have pointed to an increase in media merging and
concentration of ownership which may correlate to decreased trust in
'mass' media.
Ownership of American media
Over time, both the number of media outlets and concentration of ownership have increased, translating to fewer companies owning more media outlets.
Digital
Also known as "Big Tech,"
a collection of five major digital media companies are also noted for
their strong influence over their respective industries:
Owns search engine Google, video sharing site YouTube, proprietary rights to the open-source Android operating system, blog hosting site Blogger, Gmail e-mail service, and numerous other online media and software outlets.
Owns the largest subscription over-the-top
video service in the United States; it also owns many of the films and
television series released on the service. Netflix also owns DVD Netflix
(dvd.netflix.com), a mail-order video rental service. Netflix also has
close ties to Roku, Inc., which it spun off in 2008 to avoid self-dealing accusations but maintains a substantial investment and owns the Roku operating system used on a large proportion of smart televisions and set-top boxes.
Due
to cross-ownership restrictions in place for much of the 20th century
limiting broadcasting and print assets, as well as difficulties in
establishing synergy between the two media, print companies largely stay within the print medium.
Owns a monopoly on American satellite radio, as well as Pandora Radio, a prominent advertising-supported Internet radio platform. 72% of Sirius XM is owned by Liberty Media, which is controlled by John Malone.
Owns or operates 66 television stations in 54 markets, and holds
properties in digital media. Comprises the broadcast television and
digital media divisions of the old Gannett Company.
History of FCC regulations
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
included a provision that protected "freedom of the press" from
Congressional action. For newspapers and other print items, in which the
medium itself was practically infinite and publishers could produce as
many publications as they wanted without interfering with any other
publisher's ability to do the same, this was not a problem.
The debut of radio broadcasting in the first part of the 20th century complicated matters; the radio spectrum
is finite, and only a limited number of broadcasters could use the
medium at the same time. The United States government opted to declare
the entire broadcast spectrum to be government property and license the
rights to use the spectrum to broadcasters. After several years of
experimental broadcast licensing, the United States licensed its first
commercial radio station, KDKA, in 1920.
Prior to 1927, public airwaves in the United States were regulated by the United States Department of Commerce
and largely litigated in the courts as the growing number of stations
fought for space in the burgeoning industry. In the earliest days, radio
stations were typically required to share the same standard frequency
(833 kHz) and were not allowed to broadcast an entire day, instead
having to sign on and off at designated times to allow competing
stations to use the frequency.
The Federal Radio Act of 1927 (signed into law February 23, 1927) nationalized the airwaves and formed the Federal Radio Commission, the forerunner of the modern Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assume control of the airwaves. One of the first moves of the FRC was General Order 40, the first U.S. bandplan, which allocated permanent frequencies for most U.S. stations and eliminated most of the part-time broadcasters.
Communications Act of 1934
The Communications Act of 1934
was the stepping stone for all of the communications rules that are in
place today. When first enacted, it created the FCC (Federal
Communications Commission).
It was created to regulate the telephone monopolies, but also regulate
the licensing for the spectrum used for broadcasting. The FCC was given
authority by Congress to give out licenses to companies to use the
broadcasting spectrum. However, they had to determine whether the
license would serve "the public interest, convenience, and necessity".
The primary goal for the FCC, from the start, has been to serve the
"public interest". A debated concept, the term "public interest" was
provided with a general definition by the Federal Radio Commission. The
Commission determined, in its 1928 annual report, that "the emphasis
must be first and foremost on the interest, the convenience, and the
necessity of the listening public, and not on the interest, convenience,
or necessity of the individual broadcaster or the advertiser."
Following this reasoning, early FCC regulations reflected the
presumption that "it would not be in the public's interest for a single
entity to hold more than one broadcast license in the same community.
The view was that the public would benefit from a diverse array of
owners because it would lead to a diverse array of program and service
viewpoints."
The Communications Act of 1934
refined and expanded on the authority of the FCC to regulate public
airwaves in the United States, combining and reorganizing provisions
from the Federal Radio Act of 1927 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910.
It empowered the FCC, among other things, to administer broadcasting
licenses, impose penalties and regulate standards and equipment used on
the airwaves. The Act also mandated that the FCC would act in the
interest of the "public convenience, interest, or necessity."
The Act established a system whereby the FCC grants licenses to the
spectrum to broadcasters for commercial use, so long as the broadcasters
act in the public interest by providing news programming.
Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC,
wanted to establish high fees for broadcasting licenses, but Congress
saw this as a limitation upon free speech. Consequently, "the franchise
to operate a broadcasting station, often worth millions, is awarded free
of charge to enterprises selected under the standard of 'public
interest, convenience, or necessity.'"
Nevertheless, radio and television was dominated by the Big Three television networks until the mid-1990s, when the Fox network and UPN and The WB started to challenge that hegemony.
Cross-ownership rules of 1975
In 1975, the FCC passed the newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership rule. This ban prohibited the ownership of a daily newspaper and any "full-power broadcast station that serviced the same community".
This rule emphasized the need to ensure that a broad number of voices
were given the opportunity to communicate via different outlets in each
market. Newspapers, explicitly prohibited from federal regulation
because of the guarantee of freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,
were out of the FCC's jurisdiction, but the FCC could use the ownership
of a newspaper as a preclusion against owning radio or television
licenses, which the FCC could and did regulate.
The FCC
designed rules to make sure that there is a diversity of voices and
opinions on the airwaves. "Beginning in 1975, FCC rules banned
cross-ownership by a single entity of a daily newspaper and television
or radio broadcast station operating in the same local market." The ruling was put in place to limit media concentration in TV and radio markets, because they use public airwaves, which is a valuable, and now limited, resource.
Telecommunications Act 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
was an influential act for media cross-ownership. One of the
requirements of the act was that the FCC must conduct a biennial review
of its media ownership rules "and shall determine whether any of such
rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of
competition." The Commission was ordered to "repeal or modify any
regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest."
The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition,
actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a
trend which still continues.
Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership of TV
stations dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began
tracking such data in 1990.
Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
restrictions on media merging have decreased. Although merging media
companies seems to provide many positive outcomes for the companies
involved in the merge, it might lead to some negative outcomes for other
companies, viewers and future businesses. The FCC even found that they
were indeed negative effects of recent merges in a study that they
issued.
Since 21st century
In
September 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating
that the Commission would re-evaluate its media ownership rules pursuant
to the obligation specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
In June 2003, after its deliberations which included a single public
hearing and the review of nearly two-million pieces of correspondence
from the public opposing further relaxation of the ownership rules
the FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban
and to make changes to or repeal several of its other ownership rules
as well.
In the order, the FCC noted that the newspaper/broadcast
cross-ownership rule was no longer necessary in the public interest to
maintain competition, diversity or localism. However, in 2007 the FCC
revised its rules and ruled that they would take it "case-by-case and
determine if the cross-ownership would affect the public interest.
The rule changes permitted a company to own a newspaper and broadcast
station in any of the nation's top 20 media markets as long as there are
at least eight media outlets in the market. If the combination included
a television station, that station couldn't be in the market's top four. As it has since 2003, Prometheus Radio Project
argued that the relaxed rule would pave the way for more media
consolidation. Broadcasters, pointing to the increasing competition from
new platforms, argued that the FCC's rules—including other ownership
regulations that govern TV duopolies and radio ownership—should be relaxed even further. The FCC, meanwhile, defended its right to change the rules either way."
That public interest is what the FCC bases its judgments on, whether a
media cross-ownership would be a positive and contributive force,
locally and nationally.
The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia
in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of
elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one
forum was needed.
In 2003 the FCC set out to re-evaluate its media ownership rules specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell,
approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions
previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The
changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public
for a comment period.
Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now
permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.
Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.
All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet
services are now counted, weighted based on people's average tendency
to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.
Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been
changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for "public-interest"
considerations.
In June 2006, the FCC adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR)
to address the issues raised by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit and also to perform the recurring evaluation of the
media ownership rules required by the Telecommunications Act.
The deliberations would draw upon three formal sources of input:(1) the
submission of comments, (2) ten Commissioned studies, and (3) six
public hearings.
The FCC in 2007 voted to modestly relax its existing ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.
The FCC voted December 18, 2007 to eliminate some media ownership rules,
including a statute that forbids a single company to own both a
newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. FCC
Chairman Kevin Martin circulated the plan in October 2007.
Martin's justification for the rule change is to ensure the viability
of America's newspapers and to address issues raised in the 2003 FCC
decision that was later struck down by the courts.
The FCC held six hearings around the country to receive public input
from individuals, broadcasters and corporations. Because of the lack of
discussion during the 2003 proceedings, increased attention has been
paid to ensuring that the FCC engages in proper dialogue with the public
regarding its current rules change. FCC Commissioners Deborah
Taylor-Tate and Robert McDowell joined Chairman Martin in voting in
favor of the rule change. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan
Adelstein, both Democrats, opposed the change.
UHF discount
Beginning in 1985, the FCC implemented a rule stating that television stations broadcasting on UHF channels
would be "discounted" by half when calculating a broadcaster's total
reach, under the market share cap of 39% of U.S. TV households. This
rule was implemented because the UHF band was generally considered
inferior to VHF for broadcasting analog television. The notion became obsolete since the completion of the transition from analog to digital television
in 2009; the majority of television stations now broadcast on the UHF
band because, by contrast, it is generally considered superior for
digital transmission.
The FCC voted to deprecate the rule in September 2016; the Commission argued that the UHF discount had become technologically obsolete,
and that it was now being used as a loophole by broadcasters to
contravene its market share rules and increase their market share
through consolidation. The existing portfolios of broadcasters who now
exceeded the cap due to the change were grandfathered, including the holdings of Ion Media Networks, Tribune Media, and Univision.
However, on April 21, 2017, under new Trump administration FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, the discount was reinstated in a 2-1 vote, led by Pai and commissioner Michael O'Rielly.
The move, along with a plan to evaluate increasing the national
ownership cap, is expected to trigger a wider wave of consolidation in
broadcast television.
A challenge to the rule's restoration was filed on May 15 by The
Institute for Public Representation (a coalition of public interest
groups comprising Free Press, the United Church of Christ, Media Mobilizing Project, the Prometheus Radio Project, the National Hispanic Media Coalition and Common Cause),
which requested an emergency motion to stay the UHF discount order –
delaying its June 5 re-implementation – pending a court challenge to the
rule. The groups re-affirmed that the rule was technologically
obsolete, and was restored for the purpose of allowing media
consolidation. The FCC rejected the claims, stating that the discount
would only allow forward a regulatory review of any station group
acquisitions, and that the Institute for Public Representation's
criteria for the stay fell short of meeting adequate determination in
favor of it by the court; it also claimed that the discount was
"inextricably linked" to the agency's media ownership rules, a review of
which it initiated in May of that year.
The challenge and subsequent stay motion was partly filed as a reaction to Sinclair Broadcast Group's
proposed acquisition of Tribune Media (announced on May 8), which –
with the more than 230 stations that the combined company would have,
depending on any divestitures in certain markets where both groups own
stations – would expand the group's national reach to 78% of all U.S.
households with at least one television set with the discount. On June
1, 2017, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued a seven-day administrative stay to the UHF discount rulemaking to review the emergency stay motion.
The D.C. Court of Appeals denied the emergency stay motion in a
one-page memorandum on June 15, 2017, however, the merits of restoring
the discount is still subject to a court appeal proceeding scheduled to
occur at a later date.
Following this, in November 2017, the FCC voted 3-2 along
partisan lines to eliminate the cross-ownership ban against owning
multiple media outlets in the same local market, as well as increasing
the number of television stations that one entity may own in a local
market. Pai argued the removal of the ban was necessary for local media
to compete with online information sources like Google and Facebook. The decision was appealed by advocacy groups, and in September 2019, the Third Circuit
struck down the rule change in a 2-1 decision, with the majority
opinion stating the FCC "did not adequately consider the effect its
sweeping rule changes will have on ownership of broadcast media by women
and racial minorities." Pai stated plans to appeal this ruling. The FCC petitioned to the Supreme Court under FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in April 2021 to reverse the Third
Circuit's ruling, stating that the FCC's rule changes did not violate
the Administrative Procedure Act,
and that there was no Congressional mandate for the FCC to consider the
impact on minority ownership of its rulemaking, thus allowing the FCC
to proceed with relaxation of media cross-ownership rules.
Local content
A
2008 study found that news stations operated by a small media company
produced more local news and more locally produced video than large
chain-based broadcasting groups.It was then argued that the FCC claimed, in 2003, that larger media
groups produced better quality local content. Research by Philip Napoli
and Michael Yan showed that larger media groups actually produced less
local content.
In a different study, they also showed that "ownership by one of the
big four broadcast networks has been linked to a considerable decrease
in the amount of televised local public affairs programming"
The major reasoning the FCC made for deregulation was that with
more capital, broadcasting organizations could produce more and better
local content. However, the research studies by Napoli and Yan showed
that once teamed-up, they produced less content. Cross ownership between
broadcasting and newspapers is a complicated issue. The FCC believes
that more deregulation is necessary. However, with research studies
showing that they produced less local content - less voices being heard
that are from within the communities. While less local voices are heard,
more national-based voices do appear. Chain-based companies are using
convergence, the same content being produced across multiple mediums, to
produce this mass-produced content. It is cheaper and more efficient
than having to run different local and national news. However, with
convergence and chain-based ownership you can choose which stories to
run and how the stories are heard - being able to be played in local
communities and national stage.
Media consolidation debate
Robert W. McChesney
Robert McChesney is an advocate for media reform, and the co-founder of Free Press, which was established in 2003.
His work is based on theoretical, normative, and empirical evidence
suggesting that media regulation efforts should be more strongly
oriented towards maintaining a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints in
the media environment. However, his viewpoints on current regulation
are; "there is every bit as much regulation by government as before,
only now it is more explicitly directed to serve large corporate
interests."
McChesney believes that the Free Press' objective is a more
diverse and competitive commercial system with a significant nonprofit
and noncommercial sector. It would be a system built for the citizens,
but most importantly - it would be accessible to anyone who wants to
broadcast. Not only specifically the big corporations that can afford to
broadcast nationally, but more importantly locally. McChesney
suggests that to better our current system we need to "establish a bona
fide noncommercial public radio and television system, with local and
national stations and networks. The expense should come out of the
general budget"
Benjamin Compaine
Benjamin Compaine believes that the current media system is "one of the most competitive major industries in U.S. commerce."
He believes that much of the media in the United States is operating in
the same market. He also believes that all the content is being
interchanged between different media.
Compaine believes that due to convergence, two or more things
coming together, the media has been saved. Because of the ease of access
to send the same message across multiple and different mediums, the
message is more likely to be heard. He also believes that due to the
higher amount of capital and funding, the media outlets are able to stay
competitive because they are trying to reach more listeners or readers
by using newer media.
Benjamin Compaine's main argument is that the consolidation of
media outlets, across multiple ownerships, has allowed for a better
quality of content. He also stated that the news is interchangeable, and
as such, making the media market less concentrated than previously
thought, the idea being that since the same story is being pushed across
multiple different platforms, then it can only be counted as one news
story from multiple sources. Compaine also believed the news is more
readily available, making it far easier for individuals to access than
traditional methods.
American public distrust in the media
A 2012 Gallup
poll found that Americans' distrust in the mass media had hit a new
high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to
report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust had increased
since the previous few years, when Americans were already more negative
about the media than they had been in the years before 2004.
Music industry
Critics
of media consolidation in broadcast radio say it has made the music
played more homogeneous, and makes it more difficult for acts to gain
local popularity.
They also believe it has reduced the demographic diversity of popular
music, pointing to a study which found representation of women in
country music charts at 11.3% from 2000 to 2018.
Critics point out that media consolidation has allowed Sinclair Broadcast Group to require hundreds of local stations to run editorials by Boris Epshteyn (an advisor to Donald Trump), terrorism alerts, and anti-John Kerry documentary Stolen Honor, and even to force local news anchors to read an editorial mirroring Trump's denunciation of the news media for bias and fake news.
